What if, now that we know the universe is electrical or ninety-five percent plasma driven, that one day we find out that atoms are just little solar systems or galaxies? Nature just repeating basic principals over and over. “what is above is below“.

This would make the CERN scientists, who waste billions of dollars just smashing things, barbaric, the destroyers of worlds. Even if their theory is validated, the standard atomic and gravity model of the universe only accounts for about five per cent of matter. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” are thought to make up the rest, but have yet to be detected.

If you need to spend nearly four billion euro just to see evidence of your pet theory then you can be quite assured that your theory is wrong. Give me four billion euro and I will prove, without further argument, anything you want!

Excellent reading. The Electric Sky is a bit easier to read. Both offer a thorough discussion of why current astrophysics theories are nonsense and propose and elegant alternative. The Plasma Universe is a term coined by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén in 1937 and is the greatest emerging scientific challenge to the Big Bang Theory. If his ideas had been adopted over 70 years ago we would have made enormous strides in our understanding of the universe which is now seen as made up of over 99% plasma. Instead astrophysics has had little real progress since Newton mathematically described gravity, and Einstein described its behaviour as if space was curved. It is unfortunate that few ‘experts’ or renown authorities cannot support ideas that undermine the body of knowledge upon which their authority stands. This forces many unconformists who enjoy challenging fashionable belief systems to be cast as lunatics and mad men.

If you haven’t heard of the concept before I recommend that you have a quick read of wiki’s entries on the subject. There is a growing body of scientist that are now supporting this theory.

While I do not completely agree with the concept of plasmas which are seen as charged ‘particles’, (the “particles” in our universe such as stars and galaxies are the result of the electric currents not the cause) the idea presented in these books that the universe is electric in nature is correct. I remember when studying the structure of atoms at school, asking the teacher why this little structures (atoms) could not be tiny solar systems. Well, it produced a good laugh by the whole class. “Our universe is held together by gravity, while atoms are held together by electrical charges” was the terse reply. We now know that this is not true. Gravity is a very weak force, if it can be called a force at all, and among many things cannot explain the super structures in our universe. Invisible Dark Matter, inaccessible by the laws of physics, has to be invented to hold a gravity based universe together.

Nor can the Big Bang Theory be true. There simply has not been enough time (13.7 billion years) for even the galaxies that we can observe to have formed. The cosmological red shift or Doppler effect that we observe may be the Compton Effect. Observations also demonstrate that red shift cannot determine distance, with co-joined galaxies giving vastly different red shift readings. Or who is to say that our universe is not oscillating like everything else we have experienced in the universe. Even the smallest of oscillations on a galactic scale would seem significant. You can easily imagine that in a 100 or 1000 years scientists may be saying at a different point in the oscillation that the universe is collapsing and in 13.7 billion years will be reduced back to a singularity.

One also must ask why science has adopted a theory from a Catholic priest (Monsignor Georges Lemaître) that sounds suspiciously like creationism. Science says that “the universe was created by a big bang”. The Church says nooo “that God went pouf and universe was born, in 6 days”. So we are only allowed to argue whether it was a “bang” or a “pouf? As Terry Pratchet succinctly and humorously explains it “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”

Scientists have desperately tried to invent all types nonsense theories and incomprehensible mathematical models to support their untestable theories. According to many of today’s astrophysicists and Big Bangers more than 96% of our universe is made up of invisible entities. Imagine if I, a physicist, told you that there was an invisible elephant standing behind you made from both Warm and Fuzzy Dark Matter. You can’t hear, smell or feel it but it’s there. How could you prove me wrong?

There is another problem. All matter is made up from energy. We have proven this. Yet modern science is forever inventing more particles to explain the nature of the universe. Yes, the universe is infinitely divisible because it is made up from an non viscous ether. We experience this as electricity in all its states. Looking for particles in particle accelerators is like taking our solar system and smashing it into a million pieces to understand what it is made from. Barbaric really, and bordering on insanity! But these so-called scientists get to name yet another particle after themselves, write another paper and ask for $Billions more in funding for their toys. If you want to understand this more I highly recomend you read these books. I am also currently reading “The Electric Universe” by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott which I can highly recommend. These books give you an excellent understanding of the greatest emerging scientific challenge to the Big Bang Theory. I would also recommend googling “the electric universe” which will give you many sites dedicated to these views. It is upsetting that ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’ was originally written nearly 20 years ago and has not reached a mainstream audience. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we will one day soon look back on The Bang Theory and ask ourselves how anybody could have possibly believed such nonsense and why we hung onto the theory for so long despite an enormous body of evidence to the contrary.

My theories differ from the core assumption of these books. I believe the theory of electricity as charged particles is incorrect. The particles, be they atoms or solar systems, are the dross of the electric universe. There is a wonderful experiment that can be done with a vibrating metal plate and some fine sand. At certain frequencies the sand forms beautiful and elaborate patterns. The point most often missed with this experiment is that the sand gathers in the areas of least movement. So what you are seeing is the negative form of the energy pattern. So it is with our universe. Atoms are made within the violent electrical systems of our universe and gather where there is the least movement. Pushed out of the way, so to speak. The attempt at understanding our universe by studying matter is a folly as all matter is simply natures way of capturing energy systems. When electricity was first discovered it was viewed as a fluid. Nearly all explanations of electric phenomenon were in elegant terms of “pressure”, “flow”, “current” and “capacity”, concepts that could be easily understood. When scientists started naming these as Watts, Hertz, Ohms etc these simple concepts became beyond the interest or comprehension of most mortals. We must get back to the simplest premise of movement–pressure–density as a measure of all phenomenon to understand our universe.

Share this:

Like this:

There is a part of my mind that stubbornly thinks about science. I have a life, job, wife and family but without my Van Der Graaf Generator life would be incomplete. I am a great believer that this amazing universe came into being through process: movement >pressure > density > mass. Maybe I believe in an non viscous ether.